About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
that the first, at this point $5 million in inheritance is tax free. but doma says same-sex marriage is not recognize at the federal law. she didn't get that federal tax break. that's what doma is all about, as i read what senator paul is saying, he says he would agree with the plaintiff in this case that the federal government should grant her the rights that she has under the state in which she was married. >> interesting. i am aware that in new york today there's going to be a march over doma. there are a lot of strong opinions on either side. what's the next step other than the courts? >> well, it is the courts. this is going to come up before the court this week, monday, tuesday and wednesday they're going to hear proposition 8, the whole question of whether or not same-sex marriage can be banned as it was in california, then this issue of what the federal role should be. this is tough role for conservatives because they've held db the federal doma law signed by president bill clinton, puts the government right if the middle of same-sex marriage saying it will not recognize it e
windsor. she is challenging doma, the defense of marriage act. she said she was forced to pay taxes when her wife died. >> it was incredible expense. >> meanwhile, people who want to witness the cases firsthand began lining up outside the court on thursday. using tents, tarps, even umbrellas to shelter from today's snowfall. they're hoping to receive one of the roughly 60 seats available to the public. we learn one of those who will be inside the court is the lesbian couple of chief justice john roberts. jean podrasky will attend the hearings with her partner of four years. podrasky said this about her cousin. i believe he sees where the tide is going. i do trust him. i absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction. public opinion on same sex marriage has shifted dramatically. a recent poll shows 58% think it should be legal. that is up, 37% just a decade ago. justice correspondent pete williams is live in washington. a lot of details there but we know there are many options for the supreme court in a decision here in both these cases. >> right. let's start with prop 8. the court
-- in the doma case, chris, because there the question is, if a state does decide to grant same-sex marriage, can the federal government refuse to recognize it, and there's a question here about whether the government has always or usually or normally deferred to the states to let them decide what marriage is. and lurking in both of them, it should be warned, is this question about whether the parties have legal standing to bring the cases. that's a much bigger issue in the doma case than it is in prop 8. >> i was going to say, pete, one of the most fascinating things i found in reading up about this is the standing question, do the people have the right to -- it's possible worry looking at this week as a massive moment and it's possible that the justices could rule no standing and maybe not. but let me play david boyce, the -- one of the lawyers in proposition 8 and arguing for and against repeal. let's play what they had to say over the weekend and come back and talk about it. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
the supreme court to strike down doma. and now on the heels that, hillary clinton coming out in support of marriage equality. >> well that's right. i think most people assumed that secretary clinton was for it. but she wasn't in a political position in the administration. i don't think you'll see any viable democratic candidate in 2016 who's going to make it through the primary oppose gay marriage. you saw rush by governors like o'malley and cuomo to stay they supported it. the vice president. even after the announcement of senator portman and all these republican consultants you simply can't be a democratic candidate in 2016 and oppose same-sex marriage. >> susan, your reaction to this. again, this is on the heels of the fact that rob portman made this fantastic declaration of how he supports his kid and wants him to be able to achieve marriage equality in the country. a big tauurnaround in the republican party. this is huge for hillary clinton. >> i agree with ben 100%. no democrat in the 2016 campaign is going to be opposed to marriage equality. before this, she was not pro-marriage
married. d.o.m.a. about federal benefits when married. >> exactly. >> interrelated, but not the same issue. >> yes, because even if the supreme court says that prop 8 is struck down, that doesn't require any state to permit same-sex marriage. it will still be up to the states one way or the other. the only question in the doma case is whether the federal government will extend about 1,000 benefits, just like it would to opposite-sex couples, to gay couple who is get married. >> busy week, thank you. >>> the issue of same-sex marriage is among the most contentious facing the country. with both sides claiming they have moral and legal grounds to make their respective arguments. how the debate comes out could reshape how the country defines marriage for generations to come. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. we've done that with race, we've done that with women, we've done that with every discriminated class. >> it's difficult for americans and our public policy
party coming up with a video changing the clinton view on doma and in the republican party, we're hearing from all across the spectrum that regardless of what the supreme court does the party needs to have a more libertarian view on this. republicans are telling us it would be a huge help with fund-raising especially in the big states of new york, california, and florida. if the republican party were to be more open on this. and people are telling us that investors don't want to invest what they think losing national elections which could continue to be the case if republicans stay very narrow on this issue. republicans i talked to even extremely conservative ones, very christian conservative republicans are telling me the polls they have seen in the last couple of weeks have been eye-opening, showing not only that young people very heavily in favor of gay marriage, but if you extrapolate that a little bit in just 10, 20 years, this is going to be 70/30 issue that republicans are going to be quickly going to be on the wrong side of. >> to your point, mike, looking at a graphic.
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)